Re: How to prevent rtkit from giving firefox higher priority?
On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 07:26 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:19:50AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 08:41 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:17:05PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 08:03 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:43:23PM +0100, hw wrote:
> > > > > > There's only a bunch of links in that directory, apparently all
> > > > > > pointing to files that don't exist. Don't you have that?
> > > > >
> > > > > unicorn:~$ ls -l /run/user/1000/systemd/units
> > > > > total 0
> > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 greg greg 32 Jan 4 10:33 invocation:at-spi-dbus-bus.service -> bfec6466520a4586b8c9205c235ccc92
>
> > > You can access it just fine. You just don't *understand* it. (Neither
> > > do I.)
> >
> > If I could access it, I could display the file. If there is no file,
> > then these directory entries shouldn't exist.
>
> I don't know how to make it any clearer. THE SYMBOLIC LINK TARGET IS
> THE CONTENT. They are storing this "Invocation ID" inside the symbolic
> link itself.
>
> This is what they chose to do. I don't know WHY. But you can clearly
> see what they're doing.
I can only see links to files that don't exist.
> > > I did a bit of Google searching, and I think this is something called
> > > an "InvocationID".
> > >
> > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 greg greg 32 Jan 4 10:33 invocation:at-spi-dbus-bus.service -> bfec6466520a4586b8c9205c235ccc92
> > >
> > > unicorn:~$ systemctl --user show -p InvocationID at-spi-dbus-bus.service
> > > InvocationID=bfec6466520a4586b8c9205c235ccc92
> >
> > That is not useful:
> >
> >
> > systemctl --user show -p InvocationID at-spi-dbus-bus.service InvocationID=4bd113a0ec4c4f1eab6c51da8a43c1af
> > Invalid unit name "InvocationID=4bd113a0ec4c4f1eab6c51da8a43c1af" escaped as "InvocationID\x3d4bd113a0ec4c4f1eab6c51da8a43c1af" (maybe you should use systemd-escape?).
> > InvocationID=b6e84c2dd18b4d9f84436580113abaca
> >
> > InvocationID=
>
> What were you trying to do? You took my command and mangled it. You
> appended the *output* of my command as an *argument* to your command,
> substituting my 128-bit InvocationID with one of your own. Why?
I copied your command and replaced the UUID with one that shows up in
/run/user/1000/systemd/units/ as a link target since it seems unlikely
that the same UUIDs you have are being used here.. At least that was
my intention.
Maybe your command was supposed to be 'systemctl --user show -p
InvocationID at-spi-dbus-bus.service'? That shows only
InvocationID=b6e84c2dd18b4d9f84436580113abaca
which doesn't tell me anything.
> > Neither the user, nor root gets anything from this. What is it
> > supposed to show?
>
> You got the InvocationID of the at-spi-dbus-bus.service unit. You
> also got an error message because of the mangled argument you passed,
> and an extra blank InvocationID= line as output from that same mangled
> argument, because it wasn't a running unit's name.
>
> When I ran *my* command, I was simply demonstrating that the "systemctl"
> command, when asked for the InvocationID of a unit, gives the same
> 128-bit number that you can see with ls -l.
>
> That's all. Nothing more complicated than that.
How would that be useful?
> THE 128-BIT HEX NUMBER IS THE CONTENT. IT IS THE DATA. IT IS WHAT YOU
> SEEM TO BE LOOKING FOR. THAT'S ALL THERE IS. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL
> PAYLOAD TO BE FOUND.
>
> THE SYMBOLIC LINKS ARE *SUPPOSED* TO BE DANGLING. THEY ARE NOT MEANT
> TO BE catTED.
If that is so, what is the purpose of useless directory entries?
> > > Maybe it's just a fancy PID? I dunno, it's all very shrouded in mystery.
> >
> > See, you're starting to understand how this is alarming :)
>
> If you want to know what the InvocationID IS USED FOR, ask on the
> systemd mailing lists, because clearly we don't know.
That may be a good idea.
> If you want to know WHY they chose to store the InvocationID inside
> the target of a symbolic link, instead of as regular file content,
> ask on the systemd mailing lists, because clearly we don't know.
>
> If you want to know why things that you've never seen before are
> alarming to you, ask your therapist, because... well, you get the picture,
> I hope.
>
Unknown things never seen before are always alarming. There may not
be any therapist able to help you if they aren't alarming to you.
Reply to: